Comments on: Neighbors drop Project Cleveland lawsuit, UA to acquire propertyhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/
News, Art & Life in Fayetteville, ArkansasTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:59:00 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Daniel Manerhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74962
Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:34:00 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74962The more research I do on eminent domain law in the State of Arkansas the more I realize that any piece of property that the University of Arkansas decides they want they will get. If you live in any area they may someday covet be forewarned.
]]>By: mkwhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74918
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:59:04 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74918Thanks for the update FF. As a native of Fayetteville and local urban planner, I am disappointed with the UA’s decision to take the land. Project Cleveland had the potential to set a new paradigm for smart development, even though some Fayettevillains may disagree. Instead, it seems the status quo will continue for some time to come.
]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74873
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:21:32 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74873RE “Minority objections to a project that could bring problems (even if bringing profit, entertainment, or convenience to another group) are just tantrum or delusion.”
My reference to foot-stamping was in regard specifically to comments such as the one I was responding to, not to the expression of minority opinion in general. And the wishful contention that the approval should never have happened is, to use your word, a delusion.

RE “there are examples of officially vetted and sanctioned problematic poorly thought-out drainage and traffic solutions around town.”
So what? There is no reason to expect that Project Cleveland would have been among them.

RE “Some developers are on first-name, back-slapping basis with planners and city officials.”
Like most organisms, cities are in the business of growth. This friendly relationship– and I don’t dispute the notion that it deserves public scrutiny– is one reason that development projects are discussed and approved in public meetings throughout the process.

RE “Developers, investors and their representatives are on the planning commission and other boards.”
Would you prefer that these boards and committees be made up entirely of know-nothings such as yourself? That would be a big help.

RE “The bureaucratic stamp makes for “official” but it doesn’t always make for objective or smart.”
It also doesn’t guarantee that a project is bad, which appears to be your contention.

]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74871
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:06:27 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74871RE “DF does not even live here.”
I do have a Fayetteville address, and I have lived in Fayetteville off and on since 1979– with, during the off times, the intention of returning to Fayetteville. And here I am. Not that my place of residence has much to do with my ability to discuss Fayetteville’s growth and development. Facts are facts.

RE “look at the time he spends defending development at any cost”
It doesn’t take much time at all, and it is time well spent. On the other hand, look at all the time spent by people who say untrue, ignorant and irrelevant things all over the Internet because they don’t take time when they comment.

I do not support development at any cost; I support good development at reasonable cost to the community, Project Cleveland being an example. You forget that I strenuously objected to the first development proposal for the sale barn property. (I don’t like the one that was built, either.) And that I strongly supported the streamside ordinance, which was decried as “anti-development”. I also supported the expanded sidewalks on Center Street, which sort of straddles that issue. You also forget that I chided Mr. Coody on his lack of support for the road impact fee, which would have made sprawl more manageable, even if it didn’t prevent some of the sprawl that occurred during his term. The loss of everything lovely about Mount Comfort Road, for example, is a cost of development that I could not and cannot support.

Speaking of cost, here is an as-yet-undiscussed cost that will accrue to the neighborhood. Once the University adds that property to the campus and builds student housing there, crowd and traffic control, noise complaints and so on will be the responsibility of the University police rather than the Fayetteville police. I hope that works out well for the neighborhood.

]]>By: mkwhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74866
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:38:57 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74866Yes, some developers are on a first-name basis with the mayor, council members, and planners, but so are many other citizens. Even when I was a lowly college student, I was on a first name basis with former Mayor Coody, and I’m still on a first name basis with a couple council members. And no, I’m not a developer. Any resident has full access to his or her representatives, so it’s not a fair comparison. Yes, there are plenty of examples of poorly executed projects that have unfortunate effects on surrounding communities and the environment, such as most developments out Wedington Ave, or the huge student housing project along S. Hill and MLK. But those projects aren’t your backyard, so you can ignore it.

The most important reality here is that the neighborhoods surrounding the UA are going to change. Rapidly. There will be more students, many of whom do not want to live on campus, but do want to live within walking distance. To think that Cleveland St. won’t be affected is naive. Traffic questions seem to be the biggest qualm most people have, but if most of the residents are students, all those cars would remain in their parked spaces during rush hour because the people would be walking to campus. Plus, there would be, at the very least, a cafe and possibly other retail that the residents along Cleveland would almost certainly use. Imagine having a favorite coffee shop you can walk to, only blocks from the neighborhood. There are already apartments on the site, so why not have apartments plus amenities that anybody can utilize?

Leverett elementary is a challenging question. Being a former student of that great school, it is sad to me to see what’s going to happen. But it is just a matter of time before the University swallows it up (we probably won’t be able to blame private developers for that one). Fayetteville has a bad habit of closing inner city schools and sending students to the edge of town (thus increasing sprawl). The fact that the UA is attempting use eminent domain to claim right to the property on which Project Cleveland was supposed to be built to me proves the point. And the UA doesn’t want to buy the land just to have a parking lot ad infinitum. It’s either speculation or the beginning of a plan to build something, probably more dorms. If you think the UA will build something as progressive as Project Cleveland, then look at the rest of the university development. I would beg to differ.

Development is happening people. The area will get more dense. The UA wants to grow. A plan to concentrate students in the areas surrounding campus, thereby creating a type of university district, would result in fewer cars on the roads in the long run. If students must continue to live in houses more than a mile away from campus, cars will just keep coming.

]]>By: Bobhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74865
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:11:37 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74865There was actually a lot of testimony at the Council meetings from our citizens in favor of the project. Quite a few students spoke out about the need for more campus adjacent housing, especially international students pursuing graduate work for whom the dormitory model doesn’t serve very well. Several members of the environmental community spoke out in favor of the sustainability features and environmental benefits of the project as transit oriented development. Residents of neighborhoods that were built as single-family and have now been overwhelmed by students spoke about the need to provide appropriate housing alternatives closer to campus. Etc.

The only people that seem to be opposed to it were the immediate neighbors even thought the project would improve many of the issues that they were complaining about. I suspect there is something else at play here. Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in another student housing project that won’t be nearly as desirable or high quality and resents the competition? I wonder who that could be that would also yield enough power to significantly influence the University? Perhaps it was one of the plaintiffs in this frivolous lawsuit filed against the city then withdrawn after city staff spent significant time and effort compiling the appropriate documentation to respond to the claim. It’s almost like they wanted to punish the City for not voting how they wanted so they wasted our tax dollars with their hissy fit.

There you go again. Minority objections to a project that could bring problems (even if bringing profit, entertainment, or convenience to another group) are just tantrum or delusion. “The reality is” that there are examples of officially vetted and sanctioned problematic poorly thought-out drainage and traffic solutions around town. In many cases of proposed development you’ve got the neighborhood people immediately affected, the developers (investors, etc.), and the planners. Some developers are on first-name, back-slapping basis with planners and city officials. Developers, investors and their representatives are on the planning commission and other boards. The bureaucratic stamp makes for “official” but it doesn’t always make for objective or smart.

]]>By: bargiehttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74860
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:49:23 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74860DF does not even live here. look at the time he spends defending development at any cost. ask yourself why.
]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74847
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 03:05:34 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74847No, I am completely on my rocker. And, although I have experience in real estate and development design, I am not a developer, nor I have a financial interest in this project– not that either of these would affect the basic correctness of my position.

RE “Sounds like you’ve got quite the list of justifications for this project.”
Thank you. They must be pretty good, as neither you nor anybody else has been able to refute them, despite claims of “buy off” and ” lack of abiding by regulations”. “Not in my back yard” is never sufficient on its own to halt progress, and apparently nothing else of any persuasive value was offered.

RE “The problems with traffic, drainage and an elementary school across the street should have immediately stopped this project.”
Apparently not. The engineers were satisfied with the streets (which had to meed federal standards for emergency access) and the drainage (which was addressed even outside the confines of the site), and– as students would likely have lived in the apartments, traffic affecting Leverett School during school hours would have been minimized. Those issues were addressed by the developers of Project Cleveland, and your dissatisfaction is irrelevant. Now that the University has muscled in, the neighborhood will end up with traffic and drainage problems, and the in-and-out nature of the traffic throughout the day will have a greater impact on the school. And eventually the neighborhood will end up with a dorm or apartment complex on the site.

You can stamp your feet and give your wishful opinions all you like, but the reality is, the project was submitted, negotiated, vetted, found compliant with the master plan, and approved. That is the reality, and, as I am more attuned to this reality than you are, I believe I also am more firmly seated on my rocker than you are on yours– at least where this matter is concerned.

]]>By: Razorback Fan and Funky Fayetteville Loverhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74843
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:28:51 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74843David Franks,
You are completely off your rocker. Are you a developer? Or have financial interest in this project? Sounds like you’ve got quite the list of justifications for this project. The only folks who testified for this project at the city council meeting were folks that had a financial interest in the game. The problems with traffic, drainage and an elementary school across the street should have immediately stopped this project. No tears here, but maybe you should check your facts and perspective at the door.
]]>By: mkwhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74841
Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:15:15 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74841@ mark. Parking may be in short supply, but David Franks is surely right. The UA is not paying $2.5 million jsut to maintain a relatively small parking lot indefinitely. Who knows what the real plan is, but either the UA will build student housing in the future, or they will sell at a later date for more money to a developer who will build student housing. It’s shrewd business speculation, but shady in my opinion. And plausibly worse for the community then Project Cleveland would have been. This development would have been unique, and made the UA residential area more vibrant. Instead, we will have a parking lot that effectively amounts to dead space (to use urban design lingo). With the UA’s plan to further increase enrollment, however, the University Heights neighborhood will change, there will be more students, and density will increase. I daresay it’s unavoidable.
]]>By: markhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74831
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:57:23 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74831Parking IS in short supply North of the Campus (away from academic buildings) residents of Maple Hill, Reid, and the Quad need a place to park.
]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74821
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:22:37 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74821By the way: you have a very evocative screen name.
]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74819
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:16:24 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74819RE “Hold up there. Now you’re judging who represents the entire city and who doesn’t.”
Not at all. I’m pointing out that the City Council represents far more people than just the individuals in the neighborhood. In order to overthrow the interests of those tens of thousands of other people, they would have needed to hear compelling reasons from neighborhood residents. Apparently none were offered. Also note that the Council members are elected by ward, and as individual members have responsibility to the residents of their own wards, as well as a collective responsibility to the entire city.

RE “Some citizens think that keeping older established residential neighborhoods is in the interest of the entire city.”
Believe it or not, I agree with them. I helped start a neighborhood association in Wichita, and served on one of the District Advisory Boards there, for that very reason. However, it was up to these citizens to convince others of the value of their belief in regard to their own neighborhood. Given the existing encroachments on the neighborhood, and the context of large, multi-story housing, and– face it– the relative commonness of that type of neighborhood, they apparently were not able to do that.

RE “If you’re going to put a ‘box’ around the town, why not put one around the University, which seems to be turning into a rival town all its own.”
Apples and oranges, but: a private development would have accomplished part of that goal, but the neighborhood screwed up the opportunity by bringing a suit against the developers. My congratulations to them.

“The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.” The University tricked the neighborhood into living with a new, unknown devil.

]]>By: Shadows of forgotten bubbleshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74814
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:50:05 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74814RE “The City Council cannot– and should not– agree with every citizen who can’t provide a good argument against an action. As an entity, the Council has a fiduciary duty to the entire city;…’

Hold up there. Now you’re judging who represents the entire city and who doesn’t. How do you figure that the residents who resisted development had bad, dismissable arguments, while the developers and urban plannerati (not all of them necessarily even “citizens”) had the good ideas that were worth a listen? Some citizens think that keeping older established residential neighborhoods is in the interest of the entire city.

If you’re going to put a “box” around the town, why not put one around the University, which seems to be turning into a rival town all its own.

]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74801
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:51:42 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74801Who would that be?
]]>By: bargiehttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74800
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:37:54 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74800leave it to a pseudo intellectual realtor, who doesn’t even live here by the way, to pass judgement on whose views are valid and who our (the people to actually do live here) council representatives should listen to. doesn’t take much to figure out which special interests have buttered his bread.
]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74794
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:51:00 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74794Why?
]]>By: Archhttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74790
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:51:53 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74790That last sentence is even sadder.
]]>By: David Frankshttp://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2012/11/13/neighbors-drop-project-cleveland-lawsuit/#comment-74789
Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:30:50 +0000http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/?p=91082#comment-74789The University’s initial acceptance of Project Cleveland was not the pro-development view; it was the pro-University view. They did a good end run on this play. If only the football team were as good. (End gratuitous yet obligatory sports reference.)

The fact that the University plans to install a parking lot on this site for the short term– a lot that will not be particularly convenient for most students, as it is about as far from academic buildings as they could build one– is practically a guarantee that there will be a dorm on that site in the future.